HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/28/2013 - NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSIT VISION - REGIONAL TRANSIDATE: May 28, 2013
STAFF: Kurt Ravenschlag
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
North Front Range Transit Vision - Regional Transit Feasibility Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Front Range Transit Vision – Regional Transit Feasibility Study was initiated in the
spring of 2012 by the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud, Larimer County
and the North Front Range MPO. The Study’s intent is to assess the feasibility of transit operation
integration in the North Front Range 2010 Transportation Management Area (TMA) boundaries.
The Study’s focus is on operational integration options and related governance structure.
After a nearly yearlong process of data collection and analysis, public outreach, alternative
evaluation and focused discussions with the regional transit providers, the project management team
and steering committee have identified a recommendation regarding integration of regional transit
operations. The Study recommendations are as follows:
1. Ultimately, pursue full integration of both fixed-route and paratransit operations for
Loveland and Fort Collins. This may be done in a phased approach rather than in one step.
2. Utilize an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to form an “Authority” to act as the
governance structure for the regional transit operation. The IGA would allow for additional
entity participation.
3. Develop a joint task force to draft a Phased Integration Plan to improve transit coordination
and customer benefits over time.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is requesting that Council provide direction on whether they have interest in pursuing any of
the recommendations in full or in part that came out of this Study.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Regional Context
In 2000, the US Census designated the North Front Range communities of Fort Collins, Loveland
and Berthoud as a Transportation Management Area (TMA) exceeding a population of 200,000,
which qualified the region for Urbanized Area formula funding for transit. The City of Fort Collins
was named as the recipient of these Federal funds for the TMA. In the 2010 US Census, the TMA
May 28, 2013 Page 2
was expanded to include parts of Timnath, Windsor and Johnstown. The 2010 TMA map is
depicted in Attachment 1.
The North Front Range Regional transit providers have a long history of collaboration. Beginning
in 1997, Transfort and COLT (City of Loveland Transit) began operating the first regional route,
FoxTrot, between Fort Collins and Loveland. In 2008, Transfort and COLT began a cooperative
strategic planning process which was led by a Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) made up of
citizen representatives in each community. With the adoption of the two Strategic Plans in 2009,
a recommendation was also made to pursue the feasibility of integrating the regional services by the
FAC. The FAC’s letter recommending this action is included as Attachment 2. In 2010, the Cities
of Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont, the Town of Berthoud, Larimer and Boulder Counties, and
a CDOT grant extended the regional route (FLEX) to Longmont. In 2012, the Cities of Fort Collins
and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud, Larimer County and the North Front Range Metropolitan
Planning Organization (NFRMPO) decided to jointly pursue this feasibility study to explore and
analyze the potential for integrated regional transit operations and related governance structure with
the aims of improving transit service, increasing ridership, and improving transit cost-effectiveness.
Project Management
This Study began in early 2012. A project management team was assembled with representatives
from each of the participating entities, and a Steering Committee was appointed to represent the
local interests in the region. A list of Steering Committee members is included as Attachment 3.
A consultant team was also hired to act as an impartial third party and to conduct much of the data
analysis and public outreach for the Study.
Public Input and Data Review Summary
The data review, peer comparison, and public outreach for this Study took place in June through
October 2012. Several public meetings, focused discussions and interviews were held in Berthoud,
Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County. Public input topics and data points included:
• There is an existing and growing demand for paratransit service
N Gap in service between Fort Collins and Loveland is problematic
N Growing Senior Population (140% increase by 2030)
• There is a large and growing demand from both school age and college age students
• There are significant regional growth patterns
N Population
N Employment
N Healthcare
• There is a large number of intra-regional trips
N 80% of trips within TMA stay within TMA (MPO Travel Trends Survey, 2009)
N Focus on 287 corridor
• Long-term funding uncertainty exists
May 28, 2013 Page 3
• Outlying community interest in transit service (either now or in the future)
N LaPorte area (Unincorporated Larimer County)
N Timnath
N Windsor
N Etc.
• Integration was seen favorably overall but there was some concern about loss of local
autonomy and decision-making
Study Need Statements
Through the Study’s public outreach in each community, data review, peer community interviews
and discussions with agency staff and the Steering Committee, five Study Need
Statements/Evaluation criteria were identified.
1. Need to increase operational efficiency*
2. Need to increase customer benefit and ridership*
3. Need to standardize procedures to improve regulatory compliance
4. Need to establish a service model that is capable of implementing regional service plans
5. Need for political and community support and financial sustainability*
* Need Statements 1, 2 and 5 were weighted in importance by the Steering Committee.
During the evaluation process these 3 criteria were given double points compared to Need
Statements 3 and 4.
Integration Options
Six options were identified as alternative integration opportunities. A brief overview of the details
of each option is summarized below.
1. Status Quo
• Maintains operations as they are currently functioning, independent of one another.
2. Fixed-Route Operation Integration
• Considers the Integration of only fixed-route operations, which includes Transfort
and COLT.
3. Paratransit Operation Integration
• Considers the Integration of only paratransit operations, which includes:
N Transfort’s Dial-A-Ride
N COLT’s paratransit services
N BATS paratransit services
• Modeled after Transfort’s current contract for the operations of Dial-A-Ride
• Includes opportunity to provide cross-jurisdiction trips.
4. Fixed-Route and Paratransit Operation Integration
• Considers the Integration of both fixed and paratransit operations
• Combining Options 2 and 3 described above
May 28, 2013 Page 4
5. Maintenance Integration
• Considers Integration of maintenance activities for all three entities
6. Fares, Passes and Customer Information Integration
• Considers Integration of fare policies, fare media, branding, printing and all
customer information such as: websites, call-centers and other customer interface
Governance Options
Within the legal framework provided by the Colorado State Statutes, there are five alternative
governance structures available when considering integration of transit operations. In addition to
these five options, the status quo governance structure was also included in this analysis. A
summary of the details of each option is provided below.
1. Status Quo
• Maintains governance functions as they currently exist, independent of one another
2. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
• IGA is an agreement that involves or is made between two or more governments to
work together in some distinct way
• IGAs are administratively approved by each participating entity
• Budgets are approved annually as agreed upon by each participating entity
3. Regional Service Authority (RSA)
• RSA is a form of government designed to provide a specified service on a regional
basis
• RSAs are voter approved
• RSAs may levy property tax as approved by the voters
4. Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)
• RTA is a form of government that may be formed to provide a range of
transportation services
• RTAs are voter approved
• RTAs may levy sales tax as approved by the voters
5. Special District
• A Special District is a quasi-municipal corporation organized to provide specified
functions
• Special Districts are voter approved
• Special Districts may levy property tax as approved by the voters
6. Special Statutory District
• Special Statutory District is a corporate body that may be established by state statute
• Special Statutory Districts are voter approved
• Special Statutory Districts may levy sales tax as approved by the voters
May 28, 2013 Page 5
Evaluation Overview
The Integration and Governance Options were evaluated against the Need Statements/Evaluation
Criteria. A table summarizing the evaluation is included as Attachment 4. The two highest ranking
options were integration of both Fixed-route and Paratransit Operations for Fort Collins and
Loveland using an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to form an authority to act as the
governance structure. Several short- and long-term benefits of the highest ranking options were
identified:
1. Need to increase operational efficiency
a. Short-term benefits- $50,000 annual savings projected
i. Integrate Paratransit Operations – saving approximately $50,000 annually for
Loveland
b. Long-term benefits - $240,000 annual savings projected
i. Integrate staffing – reduce redundancies and cost savings will occur through
attrition
ii. Integrate route planning and dispatching – may improve route timing which
could result in cost savings
iii. Integrate capital planning and joint procurement – integrate activities related
to all purchasing will result in significant savings in the long run both in
reduced staff time and increased purchasing power
iv. Integrate training activities – sharing costs for training personnel and or
contracted training will result in long-term cost savings.
2. Need to increase customer benefit and ridership
a. Short- and Long-term benefits
i. Enhanced usability – a single regional system increases the ease of regional
trips, no transferring between systems
ii. Unified customer interface – branding, website, call center, schedules, and
fare media are all the same benefiting customers greatly
iii. Cross-jurisdictional trips – offers the opportunity for paratransit trips
between communities
iv. Increased ridership – Likely increase in ridership due to enhanced usability
for users for both the fixed-route and paratransit systems.
3. Need to standardize procedures to improve regulatory compliance
a. Short- and Long-term benefits
i. Eliminate redundancies – consolidation would integrate all regulatory
compliance activities under one entity improving overall compliance
ii. Reduced liability – reduces local municipality liability associated with
compliance with federal funds.
4. Need to establish a service model that is capable of implementing regional service plans
a. Short- and Long-term benefits
i. Improve coordination activities – consolidation would improve the ability to
coordinate and implement state and regional plans
ii. Integrate FLEX IGA – consolidation would ease the implementation of the
FLEX route and future regional routes
May 28, 2013 Page 6
iii. Improve the ability to implement regional routes – CDOT and Regional plans
that identify regional routes do not identify an operator, a regional provider
would provide for ease of implementation.
5. Need for political and community support and financial sustainability
a. Short- and Long-term benefits
i. Maintaining municipal entity anonymity – The IGA governance structure
proposed offer the most flexibility and oversight by participating entities,
compared to other options
ii. Community benefit - High level of community interest in having cross-
jurisdictional trips available for paratransit patrons
iii. No taxing power – IGA does not include taxing abilities.
Public Outreach Summary
Since the recommendations were finalized in early January, the project management team has
conducted several public outreach efforts to begin the community dialog on potential integration of
regional transit operations using an IGA governance structure. The following meetings were held
between January and May 2013:
• Fort Collins Transportation Board
• Loveland Transportation Board
• Fort Collins Commission on Disability
• Larimer County Mobility Council
• Fort Collins Barrier Busters Public Transportation Advocacy Group
• Fort Collins Dial-A-Ride Technical Advisory Committee
• Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board
• Loveland City Council
• Larimer County Senior Transportation Coalition
• 287 Coalition
• Regional Town, City and County Managers
• Larimer County Commissioners
• Berthoud Town Trustees
• Community Open Houses
N Berthoud Open House on April 29, 2013 (6 participants)
N Fort Collins Open House on May 1, 2013 (+/- 40 participants)
N Loveland Open House on May 2, 2013 (+/- 10 participants)
In summary, the public input was overall very supportive of the recommendations coming out of
this Study. The Loveland, Berthoud and Larimer County governing bodies were in support of
moving forward with further conversations as they relate to transit service integration recommended
by the Study Steering Committee.
Letters of support for the Steering Committee’s recommendation were received from the following
entities:
• Transportation Board – Approved at May 15 Board Meeting (Attachment 5)
• Larimer County Senior Transportation Coalition (Attachment 6)
May 28, 2013 Page 7
• Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board (Attachment 7)
• Fort Collins Barrier Busters Public Transportation Advocacy Group (Attachment 8)
• Study Steering Committee (Attachment 9)
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2010 Transportation Management Area Map
2. Financial Advisory Committee Letter from the Transfort and COLT Strategic Operating
Plans
3. Steering Committee Member List
4. Evaluation Matrix
5. Transportation Board Letter of Support
6. Larimer County Senior Transportation Coalition Letter of Support
7. Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board Letter of Support
8. Fort Collins Barrier Busters Public Transportation Advocacy Group Letter of Support
9. Study Steering Committee Letter of Recommendation
10. PowerPoint presentation
B E R T H O U D
J O H N S T O W N
T I M N A T H
Legend
Transfort Routes
Transfort Dial-A-Ride Service Area
COLT Routes
Loveland Paratransit Service Boundary
BATS Demand Response Service Area
2010 Transportation Management Area
I-25
Regional Arterial Roads
2 0 11 R e g i o n a l Transit S e r v i c e Area M a p
Annual $Operating 8,000,000 Costs:
Annual 2,200,Riders:000
Annual $Operating 1,100,000 Costs:
Annual 130,Riders:000
Annual Operating $275,000 Costs:
Annual 13,250 Riders:
W I N D S O R
F O R T C O L L I N S
L O V E L A N D
ATTACHMENT 1
Transfort Strategic Operating Plan Update Transfort Technical Report
August 2009
Appendix F
Citizen’s Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) Correspondence
ATTACHMENT 2
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Fort Collins City Council
Loveland City Council
Fort Collins City Manager
Loveland City Manager
Poudre School District Superintendent
From: Financial Advisory Committee of the Transit Strategic Plan
Date: April 4, 2009
Committee report on funding alternatives for transit
This letter reports the findings and recommendations of the Financial Advisory
Committee of the Transit Strategic Plan for the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland and
the Poudre R-1 School District. Our basic assumption in making these recommendations
is that expansion of transit service will be an essential means of adapting to future,
potentially, disruptive changes in energy economics, environmental policy, and
community demographics.
Overview:
In the immediate time period, the advisory committee recommends establishment of a
consolidated management structure for the area’s transit operations. While there are
several ways to do so, a Regional Service Authority (RSA) could be created without a
concurrent tax increase that would provide the platform for future funding efforts as the
economy and conditions warrant. In doing so, an RSA would allow for differing levels
of funding and service as each City wishes. This will be discussed in more detail below.
The advisory committee also finds that there is no one funding source likely to support
the transit improvements envisioned by the Transit Strategic Plan. Instead, a combination
of sources will be required. The timing of the funding will have to be informed by the
timing of any improvements in the transit system. And, while this advisory committee is
forecasting certain levels of support from each potential source, we recognize that further
discussion and debate may result in changes to the amounts shown.
The committee was given the singular task of making funding recommendations for
proposed improvements in the transit systems of Fort Collins and Loveland and better
coordination with the Poudre School District. While we were briefed on the progress of
developing the Transit Strategic Plan itself, and availed ourselves of those opportunities
to comment, we were not charged with recommending any of the design elements,
phasing, or other aspects of the plan. While the committee is supportive of improvements
in the transportation system, the Transit Strategic Plan stands on its own.
2
Management Structure:
The advisory committee looked at several governance options as they might relate to
funding possibilities. The three most likely candidates are:
Status quo. Each entity operates its own system, raises its own funds, and only limited
intergovernmental agreements exist for routes in common such as the Foxtrot line today.
The committee believes that a new approach will be needed to meet the growing needs
for transit in the area.
Combined efforts under an IGA. There are already ongoing discussions between the City
staffs seeking to improve coordination, operations and efficiency. The Transit Strategic
Plan analyzes those possibilities in more detail. While this is an improvement over doing
nothing, it fails to capture the economies of scale that a true consolidation offers.
A new operational authority. The committee recommends that a Regional Service
Authority (RSA), dedicated to transit with no new funding, be considered as the initial
step towards an area-wide transit operation. There appear to be several advantages to this
approach for the near term:
• An RSA requires a vote to establish but then becomes its own legal entity for
future fund raising, operations, etc. Getting public support for a consolidated
effort will build knowledge and support for future growth of the system.
• The RSA can be structured so that each participating entity provides its own
funding and contracts with the RSA to provide transit service at whatever level it
wishes.
• The RSA starts with an appointed, unpaid board of directors. By contracting with
the cities for all staff services, little if any resources are needed to sustain the
board itself.
• An RSA allows the participating cities to take best advantage of economies of
scale in their transit operations.
• The need for inter-city mobility and federal funding requirements already favor a
consolidated transit operation across the study area.
• While this recommendation speaks only to Fort Collins and Loveland, an RSA
can be designed so that additional jurisdictions could join now or later.
• The tight focus of an RSA on only transit service helps avoid any confusion with
any other regional transportation efforts towards infrastructure.
The City Transit Staffs have more detail about this option and the requirements to
establish such an authority.
Potential Revenue Sources: (See Attachment A for summary)
The committee recognizes the differences in transit philosophies between the two cities.
As a result, the following discussion of possible sources of funding needs to be combined
with the concept of an RSA where each city can pick and choose how it raises the funds
for the amount of service it wishes to provide. However, in the interest of brevity, the
numbers shown below are for combined Fort Collins and Loveland. The Transit
Strategic Plan will have more individual city detail. The mission of this committee was
to research how all three phases of the strategic plan could be funded – a total annual
3
need of approximately $37 million dollars by 2015. The numbers shown below illustrate
at least one route to that amount. (Numbers shown are estimates and subject to further
refinement.)
Attachment B of this letter lists the most promising revenue sources considered by the
committee. In evaluating possible revenue streams for the strategic plan, the advisory
committee used several criteria to evaluate each:
• Reliable and dedicated source
• Fair: Places burden on users, but not undue burden on those least able to pay
• Ease of administration and implementation
• Revenue grows with the community
• Ability for differentiation by community
• Likely success with voters, public acceptance
In regard to the last item, likelihood of success, the advisory committee is keenly aware
of the current economic situation. Timing will require careful judgment.
After reviewing a wide range of possible funding sources, the committee recommends
further consideration of the revenue sources described below. These recommendations
reflect the general consensus of the committee except for the Transit Utility Tax as
discussed below.
Maintenance of Effort: Today both Loveland and Fort Collins are using General Fund
revenues along with Federal and occasional State support to operate the current level of
transit service. This report anticipates continuation of that effort. However, in packaging
a suite of community improvements with a tax increase, it may prove advantageous to
combine all transit funding in a common statement of need. Today, the existing sources
of funding (local, state and federal) contribute $9.5 million to the transit systems. With
projected volume and inflationary increases, those sources will produce $15.1 million by
2015.
Fares: A fare is the fee someone pays each time they step aboard a vehicle. It can take
the form of cash; a pre-paid monthly or yearly pass (with or without a discount); a
transfer from another bus; or a waiver based on some factor such as age. Typically the
fare-box revenues cover 10% to 15% of the cost of operating the system. Commuters
taking a lengthy inter-regional bus to work might pay most of the cost of the trip, while a
fully subsidized local service that caters to tourists and shoppers might not charge at all.
Too high of a fare becomes a regressive burden on the low-income transit-dependent
population and discourages choice riders from giving up their alternatives, typically
automobiles. As a result, setting of fares is a philosophical question regarding the overall
mission of the transit system as it relates to mobility, congestion, economic development,
air quality, etc. For the purposes of this study, the advisory committee recommends
continuation of the existing fare levels which will grow by an additional $1million by the
time the system is built out.
General Sales Tax: This has the greatest capacity to raise funds. It is also the most
sought after revenue source and competition by other City needs will be intense. Any
increase in the rate of sales tax, or redirection of an existing sales tax, will require a
4
public vote. The advisory committee recommends by the time of the final build out of
Phase 3 of the strategic plan, $11.2 million additional dollars per year for transit should
be funded by sales tax which is just over a ¼ cent tax on non-grocery sales. This would
be about $11 per month per household.
Transit Utility Fee: A fee would be added each month to an existing utility bill to pay for
the basic mobility service provided by the transit system.
• The majority of the committee supports this approach on the belief that all
members of the community receive direct and/or indirect benefits of the fully-
developed transit system. The benefits apply to drivers as well as non-drivers
since the reductions in congestion, improvement in air quality, etc. extend beyond
the transit ridership. The fee would be applied as a flat rate for households, but
may vary for businesses based on their traffic generation potential. Properly
designed, a fee can be assessed by the City Council without a public vote. Up to
$6.7 million dollars per year can be raised by a 5% utility fee which would cost
just under $7 per month per household – or perhaps as low as $3 per month if
businesses are assessed at a higher level commensurate with their traffic needs.
• Two committee members do not support this approach for several reasons. For
one, in difficult times like this, it is felt that citizens should vote on any fee or tax
increase since many households already have to make difficult spending
decisions. Also there is the concern that such a fee is not a stable resource since
new councils can redirect or stop the funding. And, finally, there is a concern that
assessing fees on businesses based on volume of rides generated could be
subjective and place an undue burden on businesses.
Negotiated Agreements: Today the Associated Students of Colorado State University
(ASCSU) pays a fee to Transfort in exchange for which all students with a current I.D.
can ride any Transfort bus without paying a fare. The bus routes serving CSU are the
most heavily used, and Transfort is able to share the economies back to the students with
a collective fee that is much lower than if all riders paid the current fare box rates. Also,
as a marketing tool, businesses are offered the opportunity to buy highly discounted
annual passes for their employees. The advisory committee believes there may be a few
places where special, additional service might be offered in exchange for a flat fee such
as used with CSU. Following an extensive analysis of this option the committee was
disappointed to find that negotiated agreements can generate no more than an additional
$1 million per year, and it could be some time before that level of funding could be
reached. The committee notes that the existence of an area-wide RSA would improve the
ability to recruit new partners thanks to the broader service area.
Special Improvement Districts: There is already a great deal of interest in the
development and business community around the Transit Oriented Development
possibilities of the Mason Corridor and its Bus Rapid Transit system. Other transit
corridors, such as along Harmony Road in Fort Collins are envisioned in the long-term
Transit Strategic Plan. Additional revenues are possible in such a district through either
an increase in property values such as the Fort Collins Downtown Development
Authority, or through a tax increment financing, or even a special district sales tax. This
source could ultimately have considerable potential. In the time horizon of the study, by
2015 Special Improvement Districts could generate $2 million per year of revenue.
5
Implementation:
If a Regional Service Authority is to be established, additional study will be needed with
legal and operational experts to design the underlying agreements and ballot language.
Then a campaign effort will be needed to present the concept and benefits to the voters.
The committee recommends that other potential partners, such as Larimer County and the
City of Berthoud be contacted to see if their transit operations would be candidates for
inclusion.
Once the governance structure is decided, timing and approach to funding and service
levels then revert to local leadership:
• Transit Utility Fees, fares, and negotiated agreements are within the purview of
the City Councils and thus the quickest sources to raise additional funds.
• Special improvement districts typically require a vote of the property owners
within the district. While these sources individually and in combination can fund
a number of improvements, they are not sufficient to fund the full build out of the
transit system as envisioned in the strategic plan.
• Sales tax increases or redirections will require a popular vote which can be held
on a city by city basis. The timing of such votes must coincide with established
elections and generally require a non-governmental organization to champion and
fund the campaign.
The advisory committee noted that the City of Denver successfully used a multiple
choice tax referendum called “A to I” where voters could chose among several options.
Knowing there are other varying calls for funding in Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer
County (police, jails, pavement, parks, mental health, etc.) structuring a common,
singular campaign seems problematic across all jurisdictions. However, the concept of
increased voter choice within each individual jurisdiction warrants additional study.
Justification and conclusion:
Double digit increases in transit ridership followed the spike in gasoline prices last year.
In the future our communities will likely see the return of higher fuel costs, continued air
quality and climate issues, increasing road congestion, and an aging population. The
need for, and growing value of, mass transit options is clear.
According to the American Automobile Association, it costs a family about $500 per
month to own and use an automobile. Use of a high service transit system by family
members can offset the need to fuel, or even own, one or more automobiles. This can
free up a considerable amount of household wealth for other needs. To a low income
family that might mean the difference in finding and holding a job, or qualifying for a
mortgage or educational loan. To an upper income family, elimination of the second or
third family vehicle would put funds currently being exported to car manufacturers and
oil companies back into the local economy.
Whatever route is pursued, improved transit service must in the end make sense to the
population. Any endeavor to ask officials and voters for additional funding will have to
connect the benefits of transit back to the individual.
6
The advisory committee wishes to compliment the City and School District staffs for
their professionalism and dedication to their work. It has been a pleasure to work with
them on this effort. Our community is already the richer for having such people in its
employ.
Thank you for considering this recommendation. We will be happy to answer any
questions at your convenience.
On behalf of the Financial Advisory Committee,
Gary D. Thomas
757 Cherokee Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Home 970-482-7125
Work 970-223-8604
_____________________________________________
Attachment A: Recommended possible revenue sources
Attachment B: All revenue sources considered
Attachment C: Roster of advisory committee
7
Attachment A
Recommended possible revenue sources vs. needs
Phase Annual Costs Sources Revenues Balance needed
2009
Current
9,500,000
Existing local and
federal funds 9,500,000 0
2015
Phase III
37,000,000
37,000,000
Maintenance of
Effort 15,100,000 21,900,000
Add’l fares 1,000,000 20,900,000
¼ + cent sales tax 11,200,000 9,700,000
5% utility fee 6,700,000 3,000,000
New negotiated
agreements 1,000,000 2,000,000
Special improvement
districts along
corridors 2,000,000 0
Amounts shown are projected estimates including inflation.
8
General Fund
(sales tax)
Has ability to raise large amounts of revenue.
Majority of regional retailers are located in Fort Collins and Loveland.
Diffuses funding burden over many people and businesses, including
out-of-region visitors.
Easy to administer.
Represents majority of existing revenue and unable to keep pace with
rising costs.
Requires City Council to allocate additional funding to transit budget.
Competes with other City services.
Subject to changes in biennial City budget (BFO).
Vulnerable to business cycles and may stagnate or decline during
economic downturn.
Seen as regressive but rebates possible to lessen impact.
Federal Funding
Historically reliable source of funds.
5307 Funding is formula based, so as revenue hours increase funding
increases.
Generates decent revenue, but would not keep pace if system were to
grow.
Easy to administer.
Federal funding is generated from national sources not just local.
Mostly only available for capital assistance.
Does not provide enough funding to meet capital needs.
No guarantee of increased annual amounts.
Fares and Passes
Users are paying for service.
Discounted pass sales has resulted in a growing segment of fare
revenue and large increase in ridership.
New Technology could increase fare recovery rate.
Represents only 5% of current operating costs.
Limited in amount that can be increased due to impacts on ridership.
Not keeping pace with increased operating costs.
Challenging to have 100% fare recovery except on long distance lines.
ASCSU Agreement
Represents approximately 16% of the costs to deliver service to
campus.
Provides a higher revenue recovery than if we collected fares from
riding students.
Contracts are negotiated regularly (strength and weakness)
Easy to administer.
Contracts are negotiated with students who have short term interests.
Attachment B
Funding Sources Considered with Strengths and Weaknesses
9
Advertising
20 year Contract with Next Media covers all bus stop
installation costs, and generates revenue.
Increased opportunities for additional advertising with new
technology at stops and transit centers.
Easy to administer.
Funds coming through commercial advertising.
Revenue represents a little over 2% of total operating costs.
Growth in advertising revenue is limited to space available to
advertise.
Does not keep pace with increased operating costs.
Misc. Grants
Provides unexpected revenue primarily for capital needs.
Very unreliable.
Sales Tax (Other than
General Fund)
Has ability to raise large amounts of revenue.
Majority of regional retailers are located in Fort Collins and
Loveland.
Diffuses funding burden over many people and businesses,
including out-of-region visitors.
Considered a regressive tax but rebates possible to lessen
impact.
Vulnerable to business cycles and may stagnate or decline
during economic downturn.
Property Tax
Potential for substantial reliable revenue.
Revenue will rise with rising property values.
Can be imposed on those that benefit most from property value
increases related to transit.
Is a regressive tax, affecting lower income households more
than higher income households.
Fully funded by landowners in taxing jurisdiction.
Commercial landowners pay higher property tax per dollar due
to Gallagher Amendment.
If a district is used, could have equity arguments.
Motor Vehicle
Registration Fee
Directly tied to transportation.
Assessed on motorists who contribute to congestion of
roadways.
Not as productive as sales or property tax.
Fee is capped at $10 per registered vehicle per year.
Similar problem as Gas Tax, as more people ride transit fewer
autos are being purchased.
State just added a new fee.
10
Impact Fees
Requires new growth to “pay its own way” for transit infrastructure.
Captures both residential and commercial development.
Only available for capital assistance.
Not as productive in revenue generation as sales or property tax.
Must demonstrate rational nexus and rough proportionality in the fee
amount.
New Negotiated
Agreements
Would provide a higher revenue recovery than if we collected fares
from passengers.
Would potentially increase ridership, which would in turn increase
Federal funding.
Could target apartment complexes, school districts, CSU admin.,
existing districts (DDA), business parks, etc.
Agreements can be terminated at any time.
Agreements can be renegotiated.
Could increase overhead costs to manage various agreements and
contracts.
Improvement
Districts
See property tax.
Visitor Benefit Tax
Visitors, not residents, will fund improvements.
Reliable revenue source.
Could face lodging industry opposition.
Lodging industry claims high visitor benefit taxes hurt tourism.
Transit Utility Fee
Steady revenue stream, keeps pace with growth.
Relatively easy to administer with existing utilities already in place.
Relatively low revenue production with a flat fee.
Can be regressive, rebates can lessen impact on low income
households.
Head Tax Fee
Direct link to transportation impacts.
Residents and commuters pay the fee.
Employer and employee share the fee (Denver model).
Potential citizen aversion to a “new” tax.
Not as productive as sales or property tax.
Congestion Fee
Direct link to transportation.
Residents and commuters pay the fee.
Will keep pace with growth.
Reliable revenue stream.
Exogenous benefits.
Unprecedented in the United States.
Upfront infrastructure investment – How do we collect this revenue?
Potential adverse effects on businesses.
Carbon Credits
N/A
11
Attachment C
Roster of Advisory Committee
Mary Atchison
Larimer County United Way, Senior Vice President for Community Investment
Donna Chapel
Chapel and Collins Wealth Management, Co-Founder
Board of Directors for the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Dan Gould
CSU Professor, Retired
Former Fort Collins Transportation Board Member
Robert Heath
Heath Construction, Founder
Daniel Hill
Loveland Outlet Malls, General Manager
Loveland Transportation Advisory Board Member
Doug Johnson
UniverCity Connections, Director of Implementation
Gary Thomas
SAINT, Executive Director
Loveland Transportation Advisory Board, Chair
Fort Collins Transportation Board, Chair
Kitty Wild
Wild Real Estate Services, Broker/Owner
NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSIT VISION
STEERING COMMITTEE LIST
7/6/2012
Entity Name Title Affiliation email
Town of Berthoud John Bauer Town Trustee Town of Berthoud jbauer@berthoud.org
Jim Birdsall jim@tbgroup.us
James Gaspard james.gaspard@biocharnow.com
City of Fort Collins Ben Manvel Councilperson City of Fort Collins bmanvel@fcgov.com
Gary Thomas Executive Director Senior Alternatives in Transportation (SAINT) sainted@frii.com
Yvonne Myers Director Columbine Health Systems yvonne.myers@columbinehealth.com
Larimer County Tom Donnelly Commissioner Larimer County donnelt@co.larimer.co.us
Evelyn King
Carol Dowding
City of Loveland Joan Shaffer Councilor City of Loveland joan.shaffer@ci.loveland.co.us
Dan Hill tabordan@comcast.net
1
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
Evaluation Matrix
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6
ForYbollins Recreation Department
Fort Collins Senior Center
1200 Raintree Drive
Fort Collins, CO B0526
970.221.6644
970.224.6072-fax
MayS, 2013
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: Please Support the Recommendations of the NFRTV Regional Transit Feasibility Study
Dear Mayor Weitkunat:
On behalf of the Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board, I am writing to urge you to support the findings and pursue
the recommendations contained in the North Front Ranj?e Transit Vision INFRTV) Regional Transit Feasibility
Study.
At its March 2013 meeting, the Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board (SAB) unanimously approved a motion to
support the recommendations of the NFRTV Regional Transit Feasibility Study (hereafter "Study") and
communicate the SAB's support for the Study to policymakers.
As an advocate for Fort Collins Seniors, the SAB is acutely aware of the importance of safe, convenient,
reliable, affordable transportation options for older residents. The SAB hosted a series of Community
Conversations in 2011-2012 that explored the future growth and impact of the aging population. (The SAB has
compiled the attached fact sheet, Aging as an Economic Driver, based on information presented at these
events.) Data gathered from participants clearly showed that transportation was the leading concern (both
present and future) of attendees. Due to this concern, the SAB was one of the founders of the Senior
Transportation Coalition, a group of Larimer County entities which is work to improve to improve regional
transportation options.
Here is some background on the Study and reasons why we support it.
The Study
The Study's Findings and Recommendation are the result of a yearlong effort involving regional transit
providers working under the direction of a diverse steering committee from participating jurisdictions.
The Study identified many important regional transportation issues and challenges and established goals for
improved service, efficiency, ridership and sustainability. Then, the Study evaluated options for integration
weighted against these evaluation criteria. Finally, the Study considered several different governance models
that also were thoroughly evaluated.
ATTACHMENT 7
Aging as an Economic Driver
Senior Citizens (+65) of Larimer County:
By 2030 (less than 20 years)
The Senior population will grow by 140% (33,500 in 2010, 81,000 in 2030
1
)
Almost 1 in every 5 citizens will be a Senior (11.1% in 2010, 18.6% in 2030
1
)
Seniors and the young (25 and under) will be more than 50% of the population
2
Between 2000 and 2010 there was a net migration of 4,690 seniors into Larimer County
3
Seniors as Consumers:
One job is supported by every 4 people over the age 65
3 (8,875 in 2010, 20,250 in 2030)
Senior wants and needs will have a large impact on housing, transportation, and health
services among other sectors
The Senior market segment will grow by 4 to 6% a year compared to 1.5% for the general
population
3
Seniors in the Labor Force:
Each year older adults (60+) in Larimer County contribute $228M in paid labor, $40M in
volunteer labor, and $228M in unpaid care to family and friends
4
Boomers are 37% of the workforce
3
and are leaving the full time workforce in record
numbers
Many will want or need to remain and may need non-traditional working arrangements such
as reduced hours, job sharing, seasonal employment, or altered work responsibilities
Seniors share these needs for non-traditional work arrangements with students, stay-at-home
parents, and other workers such as teachers
Sources: This document was prepared by the Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board – Feb 2013
1 Table provided by Elizabeth Garner, State Demographer in November 2011
(http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/sab-larimer-population.pdf)
2 State Demographer, Age and Gender Database, Feb 2013
(https://dola.colorado.gov/demog_webapps/pag_category.jsf)
3 “Aging in Colorado”, State Demographer’s Office, July 12, pg 8-9
(www.colorado.gov/demography, click on Publications and Presentations)
4 Community Assessment on Older Adults (CASOATM) of Larimer County, 2010, pg 41
(www.larimer.org/seniors/casoa_2010_lc_full_report.pdf)
~~~~- ~.. - -- - -------------- -------------------
Barrier Busters / Public Transit Action Group
Post Office 400 Fort Collins, 'CO 80522
970.419.8944 info@fccan.org
May 16, 2013
Emma McArdle, LEED GA
Transit Planner
Transfort I City of Fort Collins
Dear Ms. McArdle,
As an advocacy group that has worked for over six years to enhance Transfort and
other bus services for all community members in Fort Collins and the region, we
are delighted to learn that there is positive movement in the direction of
establishing a regional transportation system. The North Front Range Transit
Vision is an exciting project that has the potential of greatly increasing ridership
and connectivity, including paratransit, in Fort Collins, Loveland and Berthoud.
Our hope is that there will eventually be a dedicated funding source for an
excellent transportation system that includes, at a minimum, Fort Collins,
Loveland, Berthoud. Towards this end, we see a very intentional first step as
implementing an Intergovernmental Agreement among these three municipalities.
We greatly appreciate all of your effort to date on this project. We look forward to
your continued briefings to Barrier Busters I PTAG as the project moves forward.
Thanks again for all of your work.
Please don't hesitate contacting us if we can be of more assistance.
SinCerely.\1 JI .. 0-r--:-'1, ...~..
/-:' " l''-<-11\. .I
Cheryl Distaso
For BB/PTAG
ATTACHMENT 8
1
NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSIT VISION STEERING COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Steering Committee for the North Front Range Transit Vision project has met three times in the
last six months to provide input and guidance to the project team on the future of transit services in
the North Front Range. At its last meeting in January 2013, the Steering Committee reviewed the
project team’s preliminary recommendations, which include:
General agreement on the need to – and aim of - consolidating and coordinating fixed-route
and paratransit services throughout the region to improve services, cost-effectiveness, and
ridership, with the proposed first step being consolidation of Transfort and COLT fixed-route
services throughout the region as an early-action goal.
General agreement on the use of intergovernmental agreements between and among the
jurisdictions in the North Front Range as a framework for integrating and coordinating transit
services within the North Front Range Transportation Management Area (TMA).
General agreement that the next step should be presenting recommendations to local
governing bodies and facilitating agency dialogue.
Recommendations on the appointment of a staff task force to develop an initial master
intergovernmental agreement that would outline the long-range framework as well as short-
term processes for transit integration. This task force initially would consist of staff members
from Berthoud, Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County involved in financial, human
resources, legal, and transit operations activities within those jurisdictions. Additional
jurisdictions within the TMA could participate if desired or as needed in the future. The task
force would look to local examples of intergovernmental agreements as models to use in
drafting the structure of the transit services intergovernmental agreement.
The work of the task force would be reviewed by local jurisdictions and the local community
through an outreach program that includes:
o Ongoing involvement of the project Steering Committee (supplemented by additional
members if needed) to ensure project continuity;
o Follow-up briefings for and continued involvement of the groups and individuals
surveyed during this project who have an interest in improving transit services
throughout the region; and
o Briefings as needed to participating jurisdiction policy bodies.
ATTACHMENT 9
2
The North Front Range Transit Vision Steering Committee endorses these principles and urges local
jurisdictions to move forward with implementing these recommendations.
TOWN OF BERTHOUD:
____________________________
John Bauer
____________________________
Jim Birdsall
____________________________
James Gaspard
CITY OF LOVELAND:
_________________________
Joan Shaffer
_________________________
Dan Hill
CITY OF FORT COLLINS:
____________________________
Ben Manvel
____________________________
Yvonne Myers
____________________________
Gary Thomas
LARIMER COUNTY:
_________________________
Tom Donnelly
_________________________
Carol Dowding
_________________________
Evelyn King
1
1
North Front Range Transit Vision
Fort Collins City Council Work Session
May 2013
Background
Ι 2009 – Fort Collins and Loveland Conducted
Joint Strategic Plans
■ Citizen Advisory Committee Recommended
follow-up Study to Analyze Integration
Options
Ι 2012 – Study Initiated
■ Study Partners – Fort Collins, Loveland,
Berthoud, Larimer County, North Front
Range MPO
2
ATTACHMENT 10
2
Purpose of Feasibility Study
Ι Explore and analyze options for potential
integrated regional transit services and
operations, governance, and decision-making
with the aims of:
■ Improving service
■ Increasing ridership
■ Improving transit cost-effectiveness
3
Study Organization
Ι Consultant retained to conduct Feasibility
Study
Ι Project Management Team
■ Each Participating Entity Represented
Ι Project guided by Regional Steering
Committee
■ One Elected Official
■ Two Community Members
4
3
Ι 1997 – FoxTrot
Ι 2000 – Became an Urban Area following US Census
Ι 2009 – Loveland/Fort Collins Transit Strategic
■ Recommended study to integrate transit
services
Ι 2010 – US Census expands TMA
■ FLEX service to Longmont
Ι 2012 - Regional Entities Partner to Pursue Study
History of Regional Collaboration
5
Study area
6
4
Annual Operating Costs: $8 M
Annual Riders: 2,200,000
BATS
Annual Operating Costs: $1.1 M
Annual Riders: 130,000
Annual Operating Costs: $275,000
Annual Riders: 13,250
2011 Transit Services
7
Inputs
NFRMPO
Long Range
Transportation
Plan
Transit
Strategic
Operating
Plan
Local and
regional
projects
Study Area
Data
Final
recommendations
Stakeholder
comments
Steering
Committee
Peer City
Research
Public
review
8
5
Ι Existing and growing
demand for paratransit
service
■ Gap in service
■ Growing senior
population (140%
increase within 20
years)
What have we learned?
9
Ι Regional growth
patterns (population,
employment and
health care)
Ι Large number of
intra-regional trips
■ Focus on US 287
■ 80% TMA trips stay
in TMA
What have we learned - continued
10
Work
6
Ι Long-term funding uncertainty
Ι Regional air quality improvement goals
Ι Outlying communities’ interest in transit service
(Laporte and Windsor)
Ι Concern about loss of local autonomy and
decision-making
What have we learned - continued
11
12
Need Statements
1. Increase Operational Efficiency*
2. Increase Customer Benefit and Ridership*
3. Improve Regulatory Compliance
4. Implementation of Regional Plans
5. Political Support and Fiscal Sustainability*
* – Steering Committee designated higher priority
12
7
Integration Options Evaluated
1. Status Quo
2. Fixed-route
3. Paratransit
4. Total System
5. Maintenance
6. Customer Information and
Fares
Low-Med
Med-High
Med
High
Low-Med
Med-High
13
Total System Integration
Highlights
Ι Estimated Cost Savings:
■ Short-term and long-term: $50,000 +/-
annually
■ Long-term: $240,000 +/-annually
Ι Significant Customer Benefit
Ι Ability to Implement Regional Plans
14
8
Governance Options Evaluated
1. Status Quo
2. Intergovernmental Agreements
3. Regional Service Authorities
4. Regional Transportation Authorities
5. Special districts
6. Special statutory districts
Low-Med
High
Med-High
Med-High
Med-High
Med-High
15
Ι Low political feasibility for governance options
that reduce local oversight
Ι IGAs allow for ease of formation
■ Allow for phased integration if needed
■ Each participating entity maintains
budgetary authority
Governance Options Highlights
16
9
Study Conclusions
17
Ι Integration of Fort Collins and Loveland Fixed-
Route and Paratransit Operations provides:
■ Short- and Long-term cost savings
■ Immediate benefits to users
Ι Governance Structure:
■ Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
Maintains Local Autonomy
Allows for Phased Integration
Future Regional Community Participation
18
Steering Committee Recommendation
Ι Pursue integration of Fixed Route and
Paratransit service through IGA
Ι Be sure to include all parties interested in
participation
18
10
Ι General Customer Support of Steering Committee
Recommendation
Ι Regional Governing Bodies – Supportive of moving
forward with further conversations
Ι Phasing of Integration is Preferred Approach
Overview of Community Dialogue
19
1. Integration of Customer Information and Fares
2. Integration of Paratransit Operations into Shared
Contract
3. Integration of Fixed Route Operations
* Much of the integration could be accomplished
while maintaining local autonomy of operations.
Potential Phasing Options
20
11
21
Next Steps
Ι No formal action at this time; presenting
goals/recommendations to governing entities
Ι Facilitate community and local agency dialogue
Ι If some or all recommendations are accepted,
develop Joint Task Force to begin drafting IGAs
21
22
Questions for Council
Ι Does Council have interest in pursuing any of
the recommendations in full or in part that
came out of this Study?
22
12
23
Thank you
23